"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

It is the loses at generation and transmission
losses. This can be reduced by having smaller
local power stations, the UK had them, using
natural gas, using CHP to heat the local district.

The indirect transmision losses involved in
shovelling large numbers of loads of small
amounts of fuel to thousands of small power
stations all over the country are vastly greater
than the transmission losses in power cables.

Not if the fuel is in natural gas pipelines.

I thought that the natural gas accessible to the UK was not all that
much
any more.

The North sea is still full of it and we also import the stuff from
Russia.

Transmission losses then are low and overall
energy efficient is very high. Sweden do this.

I bet they have not looked carefully
enough at the costs and energy
efficiencies of such a policy, unless
they are in a position in which the
fuel is naturally available dispersed
all over the country.

The last time I looked, there were highly viable.

The issues then become how to generate electricity without using
fossil
fuel and/or heat engines. Feul cells are not heat engines, but
usually
use fossil fuel. Nuclear power doesn't use fossil fuel, but does
use
a
heat engine. windmills do neither, but are ugly, of variable
power,
and
woefully inefficient in terms of space used.

"woefully inefficient in terms of space used"?
You see cows grazing under them. They can
be in the middle of fields and only occupy a small
footprint. There are windmill farms being built off-shore
all over the UK right now, Out of sight.

Sadly, incapable of producing anything more
than a negligible amout of power.

The UK is aiming for 25% of its power generation by wind. CHP
Stirling
boilers are also envisaged to fill gaps too.

It would surprise me if they ever got that much wind power installed.

There is a mass installation programme right now, with much off it just
off-shore, out of sight and in direct line of wind.

Britain is the windiest country in Europe.

Water and wave power does
neither, but is localised as to its applicability. solar cells
are
even
ore woefully inneficient,

Wet solar panels generally inefficient per squ foot,

You should not use such a meaningless
term in a discussion which is more or
less scientifically based.

??? You can get high efficient wet solar panels, but they are "very"
expensive. Flat plate collectors are a lot less efficient.

Efficiency is defined as power out/power in.
There is no room for a subsidiary phrase
"per square foot".

You should understand how flat plate collectors work.

I do indeed understand how they work. The term
"efficiency per square foot" is nonsense.
Do you mean to tell me that if a panel has
an efficiency of 1% per square
foot, the installation of, say, 200 sq. ft of
panel would have an efficiency of 200%?

No. Just that other panels, such as Thermomax, are far higher per squ foot
area than a normal cheap flat plate.

So with a large area of Thermolux you might get to 200% more easily than
with other panels?
Please, please understand that there is no such concept as "efficiency per
square foot" in either engineering or in physics. Efficiency is usually
simply the ratio between the output power and the input power of a system.

[snip]

Franz